When they come knocking

They come to your door, in pairs, every other Saturday or so. "Are you worried out the state of the world," they ask, in their stock opening line. The WatchTower relies on lay missionaries to spread its cultic message. Russellites, better known as Jehovah's Witnesses, are drilled on a handful of issues, with stock objections to Christian theology, stock answers to Christian objections, and a handful of prooftexts from their tendentious version of the Bible.

Sorry to say, many Christians have not received systematic instruction in the faith, and so they are ill-equipped to either defend Christian theology or counter Watch Tower doctrine. So it is worthwhile to briefly review the WatchTower playbook and learn how to parry its talking-points with our own tipsheet.

I. Christ

Russellites apply a double standard to Christology. On the one hand, they attribute the deification Christ to the influence of Greek philosophy and Hindu mythology on the Church Fathers. On the other hand, they deny the influence of such pagan sources on the Virgin Birth or dying-and-rising motif.

(On the subject of comparative mythology, cf. J. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ [Baker, 1977]; B. Metzger, "Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity," Historical and Literary Studies [Eerdmans, 1968], 1-24.)

Russellites cite various verses to show that Christ is not the same as God the Father. But, of course, Trinitarians admit and affirm that Christ is different from the Father. So this objection is a straw man argument.

Russellites cite various verses to show that Christ is subordinate to the Father. This objection misses key distinctions:
(i) In the NT, it's not just a case of how the Son is related to the Father, but how the Incarnate Son is related to the Father.
(ii) In the NT, the subordination of the Son is an essential element in the economy of redemption.

What we see in the NT is a curvilinear motion. The Son comes down from heaven and returns to heaven (Jn 1:14; 17:5; Phil 2:6-11). By becoming incarnate and assuming the role of a man, servant, stone, high priest, Paschal lamb, and Good Shepherd, he temporarily abdicates the throne and voluntarily submits to an inferior status (Jn 10:17-18; Phil 2:6-11).

This is why we see an interplay between divinity and humanity (Mk 1:1-3; 2:28; 13:32; Lk 1:32,35; 2:52; Jn 1:1,14,18; 20:28; Phil 2:6-8; Col 2:9; Heb 1:1-3,8; 2:14,17), equality and inequality (Jn 5:17-18; 10:30; 14:28), and role reversal (Lk 1:33; Jn 5:22-23; 1 Cor 15:24,28; Rev 11:15).

It isn't a case of countering one prooftext with another, but of seeing the overall direction— downward and upward.

The monotheistic prooftexts (e.g., Exod 20:3; Deut 6:4; Isa 44:6) are neutral on the Trinity because their purpose is not to define the nature of God in and of himself (e.g. Exod 34:6-7), but to set the true God over against all false gods. And, in fact, the OT affirms the divinity of the Messiah (e.g. Ps 45:6-7; 110:1; Isa 9:5 [cf. 10:21]; Zech 12:8; 13:7).

In the NT, moreover, Christ is often identified with Yahweh (e.g., Jn 8:58/Exod 3:14; 12:37-41/Isa 6:1-3; Heb 1:10-12/Ps 102:25-27; Phil 2:10-11/Isa 45:23; Eph 4:8/Ps 68:18; Rev 22:13/Isa 44:6).

In NT usage, the name of "God" is often used as a proper name for the Father, whereas the title of "Lord" is frequently used to designate the Son (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6). But both "God" and "Lord" are divine designations. They are employed, not to distinguish between Creator and creature, but between the person of the Father and the person of the Son.

Even this is not an invariable rule, for the Son is probably or certainly called "God" in his own right (Jn 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:1; 1 Jn 5:20).

Rev 3:14 doesn't say that Christ is a creature. Rather, it's a complement to Rev 1:5. Christ is both the ruler (archon) of the kings of the earth (1:5) and ruler (arche) of the universe (3:14; cf. 11:15; Dan 2:44; 7:14,27). The choice of the word "arche" triggers intertextual associations with the creative role of Christ (Jn 1:1-3).

Likewise, Col 1:15 doesn't say that Christ is a creature. "First-born" is an honorific title which denotes his Davidic majesty (Ps 89:27), while vv16-17 expand on his role as the preexistent creator, conservator and consummator of the world order.

Finally, Mk 10:18 is an ad hominem (e.g., Jn 3-4). Because the rich young man is so self-righteous, Jesus redirected him to the ultimate and absolute standard of righteousness— God.

It is ironic that Russellites cite this verse, for given the works-righteousness of Watch Tower theology, Russellites are guilty of the same spiritual pride as the rich young man, and will suffer the same fate.

Russellites deny the personal, visible return of Christ, contrary to Scripture (e.g., Mt 24:30; Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7). They were forced into this face-saving denial by their false forecast of the Second Coming in 1914.

II. The Holy Spirit

Russellites apply a double standard in pneumatology. On the one hand, they admit that angelic and demonic spirits are personal agents. They affirm that God is a spirit. They even think that Christ is a spirit. (1 Pet 3:18 does not teach that Christ is a disembodied spirit. Rather, it has reference to his Resurrection by the agency of the Holy Spirit.)

On the other hand, they deny that the Spirit of God is a personal agent. But if divine, departed, demonic and angelic spirits are all personal agents, then this, at the very least, throws up a strong presumption that the Spirit of God is no less than a personal agent in his own right. If even a creaturely spirit is a personal agent, then what about the creative Spirit (Gen 1:2; 2:7; Job 26:13; 27:3; 33:4; Ps 104:30)? If the lesser, why not the greater?

Moreover, there are passages in which the person and work of the Spirit is put on a par with the person and work of the Father and Son (e.g., Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-11; 1 Cor 2:10-11).

Russellites apply a double standard to personification. On the one hand, they claim that the personal representations of the Spirit are only personifications. On the other hand, they literally apply to Christ the personification of Lady Wisdom (Prov 8).

III. Soul-sleep

Russellites apply a double standard to the resurrection. On the one hand, they deny the bodily resurrection of Christ (pace Lk 2437-43; Jn 20:27). On the other hand, they affirm the bodily resurrection of the just. But in the Bible, the resurrection of Christ is the basis for the resurrection of the just (Jn 5:28-29; 11:25-26; 1 Cor 15; Phil 3:21).

Russellites apply a double standard to the survival of the soul. On the one hand, they attribute the immortality of the soul to Platonism. On the other hand, they don't attribute conditional immortality to the Sadducees (Mt 22:23; Acts 23:8)!

Russellites disregard the fact that words such as "soul" (nephesh, pneuma) and "hell" (sheol, hades) lack a uniform sense or scope in Biblical usage. The word "soul" doesn't always refer to the incorporeal part of man (cf. Lev 19:28; Num 6:6; Ps 42:5,11; 43:5; Acts 27:37).

(It is peculiar of Russellites to invoke Ezk 18:4 in defense of soul-sleep when this admonition was addressed to the living and not the dead!)

Sometimes "hell" merely designates the grave, at other times the afterlife (e.g., Lk 16:19-31). The forbidden art of necromancy presupposed the personal survival of the departed (e.g. 1 Sam 28).

IV. Church & State

Russellites apply a double standard to Christendom. On the one hand, they blame Christendom for trying to impose doctrinal conformity by such means as the Inquisition. On the other hand, they blame Christendom for allowing far too much doctrinal diversity. So which is it? Should the Church force everyone to believe the same thing? Or should the Church permit freedom of belief, letting heretics and schismatics to go their separate ways?

Russellites apply a double standard to themselves. On the one hand, they blame Christendom for splinter groups. On the other hand, they praise Russell for splitting with the Presbyterian and Congregational churches. Why is it wrong for Christians to form breakaway denominations, but okay for Russell or Rutherford to form a cult? Russellites are fond of applying the great apostasy passages to the Church, but the Church would return the favor by applying the apostasy passages to the Watchtower and other suchlike.

Russellites apply a double standard to the OT and NT church. On the one hand, they blame Christendom for waging war. On the other hand, they don't blame the OT church for waging war (e.g., the Book of Joshua). Indeed, if we take Josh 5:14 to be a Christophany, then our Lord led his saints in holy war as the captain of the host. (On the divine identity of the Angel of the Lord, cf. Gen 16:7-11; 22:11-18; Exod 3:2-4; 13:21; 14:9; Judg 6:11-23).